Gene51 wrote:
Nice camera, the OMD. I love a lot about it except for the sensor size. How do images printed to 40"x60" look? It's the main reason I shoot a D800 FF. No comparison on large printed images. Great travel and amateur sports camera, though.
Who would ever want a 40x60inch print?
At 122 ppi from the D800, you'd better keep your distance from that print, or you can count the pixels.
Sensor size is NOT the be-all and end-all, like a crop-sensor you have to learn to use it. I have seen more bad photos from FF cameras than I care to think about.
I'm sorry, Gene, but your statement comes across as coming from someone who likes the latest, newest, bestest, most expensive toys, and I bet you've never even had an OM-D E-M1 in your hands, much less taken it out to take photos with.
Oh, I absolutely agree, it is a great travel camera. It also is a great camera to take portraits, or photos of professional show-jumping (Ian Millar, Beeze Madden level). I don't know how the camera would know the difference between amateur sports and professional sports.
One thing I do know for certain, and from personal experience: the micro 4/3 camera, with a 4/3 14-54mm II lens will give me tack-sharp handheld photos, at a resolution of 240ppi and a print size of 19 x 14 1/2 inches - and even that is larger than I ever want it!
Sorry, Gene, but belittling a camera, ANY camera, is not the way to make friends and influence people.